Quantcast
This guy tells it like it is reguarding the Borderlands 3 exclusivity with epic games store.

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - This guy tells it like it is reguarding the Borderlands 3 exclusivity with epic games store.

"what you people really ened to be aware of"

Coming from the most knowledgeable person known to man?.

No thanks, I'll take what's known over sheer arrogance any time of day. I highly value honesty and a willingness to work hard, rather than using such underhanded tactics, and simply excusing them under the petty and childish guise of "it's good competition because I'm smarter than you".

Also, coming from a guy, who doesn't bother within that realm or industry, that's not something I'd take seriously. I don't do armchair "here's the skinny" talks. It's like someone who hails from the food industry, armchairing the tv industry on what they think is best for everyone.



                                       

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
Zoombael said:

Wether you like it or not, it is competition. As a matter of fact, it is the best kind of. Epic stirs things up and exploits Valves weakness that has been present for years.

Just splendid. After years of touting a narrow interpretation of "competition is good for business", now gamer folk believes they can define what is allowed in a clash and whats a no-no.

What you people really love to not to be aware of, a digital distribution platform isnt a service for the end user alone. Its a service to whomever wants to sell digitally distributable products. If someone comes to the conclusion that a company offers a better opportunity to do business and provides a healthier environment for their products then a choice can be made.

The difference is, Valve never needed to pay for exclusivity. They still dont. Or why are there still prominent big games released via Steam? Their pole position was unrivaled for years due to the lack of competent opponents. Why waste resources? 

Yes. Nevermind whatever Sweeney once said. Its of no importance.

Contradictory statements are very much of importance, particularly if said company is doing exactly what they blamed another company of doing.

As far as the 'you people really love to not to be aware of' ~ nah. I know how this business works. Simply throwing bags of money around will not do any good for the PC market. Since Epic is allegedly providing a healthier environment for business, I'd like a breakdown on how. 

Valve's 'weakness' isn't their lack of exclusive buying. Even that 12% that people love to tout is much more meaningless considering the money being thrown around. Now, very few will argue that Valve could do a little more, but many will say that Epic's style isn't the best. If they were competing with an equally (or close to) competent store (without security woes, lack of features, etc...), then this would be a very different discussion. But, alas, here we are, talking about a 'competing store', in 2019, that lacks very basic things like a Shopping Cart.

As a student, I've being using the Epic launcher since 2013, so I'm not as fussed about the overall existence of it, but those 'gamer folk' you speak of make a good point to take issue.

Why is it so important for the subject at hand what Sweeney supposedly once said?

If you insist on weaving his words into the topic, then it should be done properly. His exact words in context. Im saying this because wherever i see this particular part come up details are missing, let alone a source provided.

I wasnt specific about Valves weakspot. I didnt mention 'not buying exclusives'. In the contrary, i said they dont need to. I also made no mention of percentages.

You know how this business works, but Epics longterm intention eludes you? You think simply copying Steam would do the trick? Screw price level even more, going even lower than Valve, and abandon the underlying motivation of countering a detrimental trend? Something CDP and e.g. Nintendos Iwata adressed and warned of in the past...

A very many would argue that Valve would ve to do a lot more than just a little to make up for the mess they willfully co-created.

The uproar this pseudo exclusivity creates is hypocritical. There is no hardware barrier. Its just another application for an open platform. Why arent people mad about Steam exclusives? Why dont they review bomb the hell out of any recent game by publishers that decided against EGS? What about my freedom of choice, huh? Why should i feel inclined to accept the company that loves to focus on trivial things, not presenting the opportunity to give my money to the one which is hellbend on supporting - directly and indirectly, short- and longterm - the creators of the products i actually buy and consume!

"Since Epic is allegedly providing a healthier environment for business, I'd like a breakdown on how."

I could do that. However, i never expressed it as a fact.

Let me rephrase:

My view on Epic was once very negative (Fortnite etc.), but now i must commend them for their boldness in taking on this behemoth task, and that is not throwing another store launcher into the fray trying to cash in while others do the bulk of the work including taking the full brunt of risky business. Their goal is much grander and they still have some distance to cover.

This new quote system is a nono... and what is this pesky little furry thing barking up my leg. Shu Shu, away with you! /punt



Hunting Season is done...

Zoombael said:
CGI-Quality said:

~ snip

My view on Epic was once very negative (Fortnite etc.), but now i must commend them for their boldness in taking on this behemoth task, and that is not throwing another store launcher into the fray trying to cash in while others do the bulk of the work including taking the full brunt of risky business. Their goal is much grander and they still have some distance to cover.

There's nothing bold about throwing around a bag of money. 'Bold' would have been bringing a robust functioning store. That's how you combat Steam. Not flash your green and bait Valve into a percentage battle to give up their exclusive hunt.



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
Zoombael said:

My view on Epic was once very negative (Fortnite etc.), but now i must commend them for their boldness in taking on this behemoth task, and that is not throwing another store launcher into the fray trying to cash in while others do the bulk of the work including taking the full brunt of risky business. Their goal is much grander and they still have some distance to cover.

There's nothing bold about throwing around a bag of money. 'Bold' would have been bringing a robust functioning store. That's how you combat Steam. Not flash your green and bait Valve into a percentage battle to give up their exclusive hunt.

Bait into? Valve altered the revenue split before EGS was released. Unfortunately, their reaction to the changing market proves that they don't acknowledge the core issue and are unwilling to undergo the long overdue transformation.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition

To the dismay of smaller developers and to the benefit of bigger fish. In favour of safe bets - established IPs/genres etc. - and superior economic prowess. Valve gives ample aid.

https://www.pcgamer.com/shadow-of-the-tomb-raider-review-bombed-because-of-34-discount/

How bizarre. Despite the infamous reputation to lower prices faster than anyone else, installing the system and rules to make it possible, Valve is not the one getting scolded by the wonderful gamer crowd. The ones allegedly making a good point or something. However, "muuh wallet, muuh shoping cart, muh reviews" is all there is. You're taking games and the people behind way to granted. I doubt something in the order of a videogame crash would make anyone of you realize where the priorities should lie. You'd propably still be satisfied with whatever piles up.

To limit the possibilities on how to put pressure on rivals would make a stale market and go against the core principle of a competitive economy. So i sorta agree. It would've been more bold to just copy Steam. In the sense of leading nowhere, the Epic agenda null and void, just another store to satisfy the need for instant gratification of the cheap-cheap-cheeeap consumer and intensify that what you call "PC Gaming". You fail to recorgnize that is isn't "throwing around bags of money", isolated deals that serve no stratigical purpose, as was the case with Microsofts Tomb Raider timed exclusive.

To top it off, you're basically saying leaving more money to developers - the people who do the actual work, take full risk - is bad? How bizarre, how bizarre. But shrugging off the prospect of Valve wasting money on another wacky hardware gamble. After Steam Machines, Steam Link, Steam Controller, now it's time for... Steam Goggles.



Hunting Season is done...

Zoombael said:
CGI-Quality said:

There's nothing bold about throwing around a bag of money. 'Bold' would have been bringing a robust functioning store. That's how you combat Steam. Not flash your green and bait Valve into a percentage battle to give up their exclusive hunt.

Bait into? Valve altered the revenue split before EGS was released. Unfortunately, their reaction to the changing market proves that they don't acknowledge the core issue and are unwilling to undergo the long overdue transformation.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition

To the dismay of smaller developers and to the benefit of bigger fish. In favour of safe bets - established IPs/genres etc. - and superior economic prowess. Valve gives ample aid.

https://www.pcgamer.com/shadow-of-the-tomb-raider-review-bombed-because-of-34-discount/

How bizarre. Despite the infamous reputation to lower prices faster than anyone else, installing the system and rules to make it possible, Valve is not the one getting scolded by the wonderful gamer crowd. The ones allegedly making a good point or something. However, "muuh wallet, muuh shoping cart, muh reviews" is all there is. You're taking games and the people behind way to granted. I doubt something in the order of a videogame crash would make anyone of you realize where the priorities should lie. You'd propably still be satisfied with whatever piles up.

To limit the possibilities on how to put pressure on rivals would make a stale market and go against the core principle of a competitive economy. So i sorta agree. It would've been more bold to just copy Steam. In the sense of leading nowhere, the Epic agenda null and void, just another store to satisfy the need for instant gratification of the cheap-cheap-cheeeap consumer and intensify that what you call "PC Gaming". You fail to recorgnize that is isn't "throwing around bags of money", isolated deals that serve no stratigical purpose, as was the case with Microsofts Tomb Raider timed exclusive.

To top it off, you're basically saying leaving more money to developers - the people who do the actual work, take full risk - is bad? How bizarre, how bizarre. But shrugging off the prospect of Valve wasting money on another wacky hardware gamble. After Steam Machines, Steam Link, Steam Controller, now it's time for... Steam Goggles.

A lot of this sidestepped my point entirely. Either way, yes, Epic baited Valve into a percentage change. No escaping that.

You can think Epic is ‘doing good’ by the PC market, that’s fine, but if they were simply about offering devs a ‘better cut’ (and nothing else), they wouldn’t have to outright buy exclusivity for games weeks from release (among other things). ‘How bizarre’ indeed.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 03 May 2019